If you have chronic back pain and
your doctor refers you to an orthopedic surgeon who tells you that he or she
can relieve the pain by inserting an appliance in your spine, there is a worry
that the surgeon may be offering the surgery mainly for the surgeon's financial
interest in that very appliance.
What is a
POD?
A POD is a
Physician Owned Distributorship. Under this business model, a doctor is an
investor in, and distributor of, the devices or hardware he may put into his
patients. Multiple doctors can have a financial interest in one POD.
Is that
business arrangement legal?
In and of
itself the arrangement is legal, but the Department of Health and Human
Services’ Office of Inspector General has concluded that PODs are “inherently
suspect under the anti-kickback statute.” It issued fraud alerts about PODs in
2006 and in 2013.
Can I
find out if my surgeon is involved in a POD?
Currently,
your physician is under no legal obligation to disclose that information. The
Sunshine Act, a provision of the Affordable Care Act, does require that each year,
certain medical device makers and distributors disclose to the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services ownership or investment interests held by
physicians or their immediate family members. The law requires the Centers to
post online the first batch of information it received by September.
Does the
‘Sunshine Act’ require my doctor to inform me that he is involved in a POD?
No. You will
have to ask on your own, or search that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services website when it is published. The Centers say the site “will be
organized and designed to increase access to and knowledge about these
relationships and to provide information to enable consumers to make informed
decisions.”
Yes, there are laws preventing
physicians from referring their patients to facilities in which they own and
invest for laboratory services or procedures. The Federal regulations called
Stark (after Pete Stark, congressman who was its primary sponsor) can be
summarized as follows: A physician may not make a referral to an entity for the
provision of a designated health service (“DHS”) for which Medicare payment may
be made (and the entity may not present a claim for services provided as a
result of such a referral) if the physician or an immediate family member has a
financial relationship with the entity unless either the referral or the
financial relationship is “excepted” from the statute’s coverage. To read more about Stark regulations, here is
the link to a paper by Homchick and Looney which explains its current status.
Please read the excellent KPCC article about this unsettled and unsettling issue and then return back here and
write what you would you think about Physician Owned Distributorship and its
implications regarding providing the least expensive but the best in medical
care. Balancing the right of private
investment by any person versus the need for unbiased decision-making and care
by your physician, how do you size up POD, ethically, legally and if you were
the patient with that back pain and were told "I have just the operation
that can fix it"? ..Maurice.
Graphic: From Google Images and modified by me with ArtRage and Picasa3.
3 Comments:
My question and concern is how can a physician remain impartial with the use of a product when the physician is personally invested in the sale and distribution of a product and whose sale and distribution will be of financial advantage to the doctor?
Or, perhaps, one could answer that the physician is NOT impartial since his or her investigation of the clinical value of the product clearly supports its use. This would mean that impartiality of the product is not a essential or ethical necessity to protect as part of clinical decision making, regardless of any self-interest. ..Maurice.
It was very common (at least here in the NE/midatlantic US for the "occupational" (workers' compensation) physicians to have a financial interest in a occupational/physical rehab center.
One reason is that they recommend 4 weeks of rehab before employee returns to work. All employees agree that a one month vacation is best before returning to work.
I believe that this trend is dropping off.
How many hospital systems have their lab, radiology, rehab, etc. as a separate corporation. (Some for profit, when the hospital itself is nonprofit.)
To "drive" the patients there they don't write a paper script, they just say "it's in the system." Patients don't realize that they are separate and depending on the labs, imaging, etc. there can be different copays.
How is this any different?
--Banterings
How about the more general question?:Does anyone think that a doctor's own private interests should ever affect the treatment of a patient? Such as scheduling a C-section on a date to accommodate the scheduling of a ob-gyn's vacation period? ..Maurice.
Post a Comment
<< Home